October 18, 2010

MR. BUCK: Well, the, the--we pay for it by cutting spending. We also pay for it by growing government. When we leave money in the hands of taxpayers, they buy things, they pay taxes, they grow government. It's not a one for one exchange in the first year, but, but it would be bad, in my view--and, and I--every economist I've talked to has told me that it would be bad in a recession to try to increase taxes....

MR. GREGORY [to the Democrat incumbent, Michael Bennet]: ... Republican leaders don't agree with what [Buck] just said, which is that you have to pay for tax cuts. So isn't he--aren't you guys more in line, wouldn't you say?

SEN. BENNET: Well, I didn't--I actually didn't hear him say that. I heard him say that you pay for it, and also by growing government you pay for it. I'm not quite sure what that means. But...

MR. BUCK: Well, let me explain to you. Here...

SEN. BENNET: ...my point is, my point is...

MR. BUCK: ...you grow government because as people have more money they spend the money and government grows. When we put people back to work, the government grows, we increase revenue and we decrease unemployment benefits.

SEN. BENNET: Well I'm definitely not interested in growing government, I can tell you that.

MR. BUCK: I'm sorry, growing the economy. I apologize.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. BUCK: Growing the economy.

MR. GREGORY: You're talking about growing the economy.

MR. BUCK: Right.

We have an awful lot of inexperienced public speakers out there these days, about to move into positions of great power....

Unfortunately, Buck blew the opportunity to speak plainly by saying -- over and over -- the most confusing thing possible. Fortunately, it was so confusing that it prompted his *opponent* to ask for the explanation that gave him the opportunity to make a correction.

Gerald Ford had a senior moment during his debate and confused Sweden with Poland. He insisted and repeated that Poland was not under Soviet domination and was an independent nation. These things happen and are not a function of experience.

The Professor just reminded me of the litigation rule #1: when the testimony comes out in your favor, immediately sit down, shut up and close yor presentation. This is a corollary rule to the rule that says to never to help your opponent's case with testimony he cannot get anywhere but from your side. Untrained litigators will try to show off. (Famous tale from a cross examination of the witness to defendat biting off a man's ear; "Did you see my client bite off the victim's ear?" ...No sir. followed by the extra question "question, "Then what did you see"... " I saw him spit it out".

I saw it when it aired. I was confused by Buck's remarks, but as I thought about it I assumed he was being clever by implying that by growing the economy the government's tax revenue increases which is effectively "growing the government".

But then at the end he disappointed me with his admission that what I had thought was a clever logical analysis was nothing more than a simple verbal gaffe.

More likely to be recorded in the quickly forgotten trivia of hard fought campaigns. Not much turns on misstatements by Senators (a fact that powerfully supports the cosmological proof for the existence of God), let alone senate candidates. That's particularly true of candidates who have a pretty clear ideological identity, as Ken Buck does.

Chris Wallace is pretty good, but he is is father's son, and that Manhattan penthouse, Long Island estate Democrat "elite" society is what he was born into and grew up in. It is what he 'knows."

I think the interchange between him and Fiorina was as much about Wallace not listening as Fiorina not being willing to answer, and she quite reasonably did not want to provide the Boxer camp with free HE ammunition two weeks before election day. Slick Willie would no doubt have headed off Wallace in a much smoother fashion, but then "smooth" is not a hallmark of Fiorina's style. If it was, she might still be at H-P.

Unfortunately, Buck blew the opportunity to speak plainly by saying -- over and over -- the most confusing thing possible. Fortunately, it was so confusing that it prompted his *opponent* to ask for the explanation that gave him the opportunity to make a correction.

Come on, Ann. The guy is not an accomplished public speaker, like The Zero. He's going to have some trouble dealing with the press until he gets the hang of it. If you don't want a permanent ruling class of people who go from law school to Congress, you're going to have to put up with a little of this.

And, yes, it will give some of their opponents (or their friends in the media) an opening, but that's the nature of the beast.

I know the old dodge is that, after women got the vote, they wouldn't vote for an ugly guy (we've never had anybody that looks like Abe, after all), but is this a case where women also want someone who also sweet talks them with perfect and eloquent speech?

I did not say Wallace "was trying to help the Democrats," and I do not think that he is. I do say that he is subject to "Pauline Kael Syndrome," and that however hard he tries, it is hard for a colorblind person to understand what you are talking about when describing the sunset.

And I do not think Boehner will be speaker of the House. I do think the person who does become Speaker, will have to get specific on those issues.

Hagar, Fiorina and Boehner are unwilling to name a spending program they would cut, and yet they go on about the need to cut spending. I don't think that you need to explain Wallace's questioning in terms of his upbringing. He's asking reasonable questions, using fairly simple, plain talk.

No he is not. He is repeating and hammering Democrat talking points from a NYT Democrat weltanschauung, and he has control of the camera and microphone. It is difficult for a guest to get from this alternative universe to the reality of this one as s/he sees it. And Republicans are historically timid about opposing the Power of the Press, plus being Republicans and properly brought up, diffident about challenging the host in his own house, so to speak.

You have a lot of inexperianced speakers IN government right now (one of whom's main laurel is said to be his great speaking ability, but which he's hard pressed to manage without prompting... teleprompting that is...).

Sometimes the people who misspeak are also the people who don't think with their heads before they vote. I understand, Ann and I share your discomfort with some of these inexperienced people. When these "rubes" start voting for things that put our nation in danger and our economy in the dumper you will all change your tune. Just because they are outsiders and inexperienced doesn't mean all the time that they are qualified to lead and to make decisions that affect us all. I don't like the slick willies either but bringing experience to the table sometimes means that things get done. I don't hold out much hope that many of these "Tea Partiers" are going to make any difference at all or get anything done.